Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3667) to amend title II of the Social Security Act to provide for the reissuance of social security account numbers to young children in cases where confidentiality has been compromised, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to identity theft, it is not just ourselves, our friends, and our coworkers, but it is also children who are at risk.

In 2021, roughly 1.25 million children were the victims of identity fraud. In many cases, it can take years before families discover that their children had their Social Security numbers stolen and misused by criminals.

Unfortunately, when parents try to obtain a new Social Security number for their child, they hit a government roadblock. Under existing policy, the Social Security Administration will only issue a new number if a child can show this theft caused harm within the past 2 years.

Because children do not have a work or credit history, many families never realize their child's identity has been compromised until it is too late.

Last year, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem testified that her family was victimized by an improper disclosure of their Social Security numbers.

Congress must take steps to protect the American people from identity theft and those who have had their Social Security numbers compromised.

H.R. 3667, the Social Security Child Protection Act of 2023 introduced by Representatives Wenstrup and Blumenauer, will require the Social Security Administration to immediately issue a new number to a child under the age of 14 when that child's Social Security card has been compromised.

This is a commonsense fix to a serious problem that millions of families face every year, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup), the author of the bill and an expert on this topic.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank my colleagues for a bipartisan effort in moving forward a solution. I am proud to say that the tradition within the Committee on Ways and Means, especially Social Security issues, is bipartisan. When we can work together, we can move legislation forward.

I always welcome opportunities to have discussions that we know are important for America. On the need to address Social Security, it is my hope we can have a bipartisan action moving forward.

Meanwhile, we have a bill here that I think shows that we can work together to strengthen Social Security, that we can root out some fraud, assist the American people in rooting out fraud, and, hopefully, ultimately, prevent it so that Social Security can be stronger as a result.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank Dr. Wenstrup for his diligent effort along the way, and I urge my colleagues to support this good piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5862) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 relating to authority of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to consolidate, modify, or reorganize Customs revenue functions, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, America's trading relationships, as well as the challenges we face in trade around the world, are evolving every day. We must respond to those challenges now, not years in the future.

Families, farmers, workers, and small businesses rely on us to look out for them in an increasingly complex world.

Last year, the Committee on Ways and Means traveled to the port of Staten Island in New York and a cattle auction barn in Minnesota to listen to the American people whose livelihoods depend on international trade. They all asked Congress to do more to insist on strong enforcement of our trade laws.

The bill before us, H.R. 5862, will help address the challenges of ever-changing threats around the world through more effective enforcement of U.S. trade laws. It takes six narrowly defined jobs at Customs and Border Protection and replaces them with a single position of trade specialist in the agency's Office of International Trade.

This streamlining will make CBP respond faster and more effectively to our Nation's trade challenges and protect and defend America's economic interests.

I thank the bill's sponsor and author, certainly, Representative Steel, as well as Representative Panetta, for taking the lead on this critical issue for American workers and the security of our supply chains. This bipartisan legislation will help ensure that American workers, families, farmers, and small businesses are not left behind.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Steel), an author of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for very sufficiently described the bill, why we need to do it, and the details contained in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great Nebraskan and patriot, John ``Gene'' Slattery, affectionately known as ``the boy who sold his shirt'' because of his extraordinary efforts as a young boy to raise funds for North Platte, Nebraska's World War II Canteen.

Gene recently passed away at the age of 90. The North Platte Canteen was one of the largest volunteer efforts during the war, providing millions of American soldiers who passed through North Platte by rail with meals, baked goods, and other items.

Gene was the last surviving major figure of the beloved Canteen, but his work and legacy, and the work and legacy of the entire Canteen, won't ever be forgotten.

Upon learning of the Canteen as a 9-year-old, Gene began donating for auction anything he could find--toys, scrap metal, even the shirt off his back. By the end of the war, Gene had raised more than $2,000 for the Canteen. His contributions and fundraising gained national recognition and were noticed by President Franklin Roosevelt, who sent Gene a letter and a $5 donation.

Gene and the North Platte Canteen volunteers represent the very best of Nebraska and America. The Canteen volunteers and the great lengths to which they went to support our troops will always live on in our hearts.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 291, and YEA on Roll Call No. 290.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our bill, the Employer Reporting Improvement Act. As was mentioned, the bill was adapted from legislation that my colleague, Mr. Thompson, and I have been working on for years, the Commonsense Reporting Act.

The Employer Reporting Improvement Act is a strong step toward cleaning up the complicated process employers use to report data required by the IRS and providing employers relief.

This data is used to determine if an employee's health coverage is considered affordable. Unfortunately, an inadvertent mistake or omission in reporting this data can result in a financial penalty for the employer long after the original submission. The potential financial penalty can put a serious strain on small businesses who are already struggling with workforce shortages and persistently high inflation.

While the vast majority of these mistakes are ultimately corrected without a financial penalty being enforced, employers are still forced to navigate a complicated maze of bureaucracy to clear up these unintentional mistakes.

The Employer Reporting Improvement Act makes simple, yet effective changes, including codifying actions previously taken to create more safeguards and flexibilities, improving the reporting process, and making it less likely employers are faced with resolving reporting problems several years after the fact.

In fact, one of the most important pieces of the bill is the creation of a reasonable statute of limitations, 6 years, for penalties resulting from reporting errors.

As we continue our work to improve employer reporting requirements, I hope we can work with the Treasury Department to find a path forward on prospective reporting, as Mr. Thompson also elaborated on.

I am glad to support the Employer Reporting Improvement Act. I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1, Lower Energy Costs Act, an actual solution to the problems we are facing.

We have seen what happens abroad when Nations are at the mercy of energy imports from nefarious actors. We have seen what happens at home when energy prices skyrocket and families struggle to pay for gas and groceries.

That is why I am a staunch supporter of this bill and the mission behind it. H.R. 1 is an important step toward unleashing American energy, lowering prices, and strengthening our energy supply chains.

The American government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. We need an all-of-the-above energy approach.

Increasing production and untangling energy from overly burdensome red tape is key toward providing certainty and stability to American businesses, consumers, and families. That is why I support this bill, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize Third District native Pete McClymont for his contributions to the Nebraska beef industry.

Pete was raised on a farm and ranching operation near Holdrege, Nebraska, and has maintained a lifelong commitment to growing the Nebraska cattle business and advancing the State as a leader in agriculture.

With steadfast excellence, Pete has fostered growth in numerous sectors of agribusiness in Nebraska and recently announced his retirement after 25 years of service in several roles with the Nebraska Cattlemen, including the last 10 as the organization's executive vice president.

Nebraska's first nickname was ``The Beef State,'' and Pete's list of accomplishments in maintaining that reputation is long. Despite having to navigate the difficult conditions of disasters, drought, and market challenges, Nebraska's beef industry is better for his leadership, and we continue to be grateful for his outstanding service.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 5, I call up the bill (H.R. 23) to rescind certain balances made available to the Internal Revenue Service, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the process for considering our first bill of the 118th Congress reflects our commitment to Americans and an open legislative process.

Congresswoman Michelle Steel and I first introduced this bill in September. Members were given more than 72 hours' notice prior to today's consideration.

Mr. Speaker, 72 hours is more than enough time for Members to review this bill. In fact, it is two pages long and covers only one topic.

If Members wish to vote on this bill, they must be present in the House Chamber because proxy voting is no longer an option.

Now let's focus on what this bill does--it repeals the vast majority of the Internal Revenue Service funding Democrats enacted last year in order to pay for their Green New Deal.

The primary purpose of that funding is hiring more auditors and support staff to vastly expand IRS's audit capacity. And not just audits on wealthy Americans. With that expanded capacity, IRS can bring in more revenue by auditing more middle- and lower-income families and more small businesses.

Families and small businesses are struggling under the weight of record inflation and supply chain shortages. Small businesses are struggling to find workers at any wage.

The overwhelming majority of Americans, about 85 percent, follow the law and pay their taxes. The last thing they need is more IRS agents knocking on doors to conduct audits.

Yet, this IRS funding is part of the broad Biden administration strategy to tax and audit exponentially more Americans by looking into their bank accounts, requiring online payment services to report them when they split a dinner check with friends or pay their babysitter after a night out, and then target them using 87,000 new IRS employees.

Americans deserve to know their government is working for them, not against them.

Today, Mr. Speaker, you are going to hear Democrats claim there really won't be 87,000 new IRS employees. I imagine that they will say that new employees aren't going to target middle-class families and small businesses, and that Republicans don't care about IRS's customer service failings.

Let's focus on the facts. When a Federal agency hires a new employee to replace one who retires, it does not increase the agency's head count. Yet, the Biden administration's own documents say they are increasing the head count by 87,000 over the next decade with these funds.

Secretary Yellen's own instructions to IRS stated audit rates of families earning less than $400,000 should continue to be audited at historically similar rates. Under those instructions, 9 out of every 10 new audits can target families earning less than $400,000.

And because Republicans are committed to delivering a government that is accountable, this bill retains funding for customer service and IT modernization at IRS--despite the fact these accounts would be more appropriately addressed through regular appropriations--to ensure IRS has the resources to make much-needed improvement to taxpayer services.

Mr. Speaker, there are numerous reasons to support this bill. It protects families and small businesses. It ensures agencies are funded appropriately. Most importantly, it stops autopilot funding for an out- of-control agency that is perhaps most in need of reform. IRS needs to fix its customer service and return processing problems, not focus on auditing families and small businesses.

Americans want an IRS that works for them, not against them.

This bill is a great first step in that direction, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an excerpt from a 2021 Biden administration proposal called ``The American Families Plan Tax Compliance Agenda'' that asks for $80 billion in IRS funding and clearly shows a plan for 86,852 new hires.

[From the U.S. Department of the Treasury, May 2021]

The American Families Plan Tax Compliance Agenda

Restoring IRS Resources

The first step in the President's efforts to restore IRS

enforcement capability is a sustained, multi-year commitment

to rebuilding the IRS. This involves spending nearly $80

billion on IRS priorities over the course of the decade

including hiring new specialized enforcement staff,

modernizing antiquated information technology, and investing

in meaningful taxpayer service--including the implementation

of the newly expanded credits aimed at providing support to

American families. Importantly, the additional resources will

go toward enforcement against those with the highest incomes,

and audit rates will not rise relative to recent years for

those earning less than $400,000 in actual income.

The President's proposal includes two components: a

dedicated stream of mandatory funds ($72.5 billion over a

decade) and a program integrity allocation ($6.7 billion over

a decade). These mechanisms provide for a sustained, multi-

year commitment to revitalizing the IRS that will give the

agency the certainty it needs to rebuild.

The IRS proposal includes year-by-year estimates of the

additional resources that will be directed toward the agency

as well as the specific activities that these resources would

support. The design ensures that the IRS is able to absorb

and usefully deploy additional resources over the entire 10-

year horizon and keeps budget growth manageable at around 10

percent per year.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a Republican Ways and Means Committee release that explains the Congressional Budget Office's determination that it expects over $20 billion in revenue to come from the increased audits on taxpayers--that means families and small businesses making less than $400,000.

[From waysandmeans.house.gov, August 12, 2022]

CBO: New IRS Audits Will Grab at Least $20B from Lower- & Middle-Income

Families

Key Point: At least $20 billion of the revenue Democrats

hope to collect from taxpayers with a supercharged IRS would

come from lower- and middle-income earners and small

businesses, according to a new analysis

by the nonpartisan congressional scorekeeper. That's in

addition to existing audits of these income levels.

Explanation: Last weekend, all 50 Senate Democrats voted

against an amendment offered by Senate Finance Republican

Leader Mike Crapo (R-ID) that would have protected lower- and

middle-income American taxpayers against new audits by the

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a Republican Ways and Means Committee release explaining that Senate Democrats voted down an amendment that would prevent increased audits on taxpayers making less than $400,000 a year and House Democrats refuse to take up a bill that would do the same.

[From waysandmeans.house.gov, Aug. 17, 2022]

Democrats Fail To Protect Middle Class From IRS Audits

Democrats voted against guardrails that would have

protected lower- and middle-income taxpayers from more audits

as a result of supercharging the IRS with 87,000 new agents.

Instead, they hope you'll just ``take their word for it''

that the IRS won't target American families who are living

paycheck to paycheck. Various news outlets have circulated

these claims as facts, but the bill text says otherwise,

Reason Magazine's Matt Welch reports.

Democrats claim they won't target lower- and middle- income

earners with their expansion of the IRS by 87,000 agents . .

.

``. . . top Democrats have been busy escalating their

already implausible claims that goosing the IRS enforcement

budget by 69 percent over a decade, hiring 87,000 additional

new staffers at an agency that currently employs 79,000, and

nabbing an estimated extra $124 billion in tax revenue will

miraculously not bring any percentage increase in audits

performed on Americans earning less than $400,000 a year.''

. . . but the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office

predicts boosted IRS funding will increase audits for all

taxpayers . . .

``CBO Director Phillip L. Swagel estimated that boosting

IRS funding by $80 billion would increase tax revenues by

$200 billion (the number would later rise to $207 billion,

before settling at $204 billion), adding that `the proposal .

. . would return audit rates to the levels of about 10 years

ago; the rate would rise for all taxpayers' (italics mine),

though `higher-income taxpayers would face the largest

increase.' ''

. . . and Democrats voted against Republican amendments

preventing lower income earners from being targeted by higher

audits.

``In the final IRA bill, in fact, $45.7 billion is

earmarked for `enforcement,' and $25.3 billion goes to

`operations support.' There is no reason to conclude from

those dollar amounts that the number of resulting audits will

be less than originally projected.''

Many ``fact checkers'' have refused to verify claims by

Democrats:

``As Liz Wolfe has reported repeatedly in the pages of

Reason, none of these assurances live in the text of the

Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) itself. One Republican

amendment ``to prevent the use of additional Internal Revenue

Service Funds from being used for audits of taxpayers with

taxable incomes below $400,000'' was voted down on party

lines. You'll just have to take Democrats' word for it.

``That's good enough for many news organizations, who have

been coughing up ``fact-checks'' aimed not at the

demonstrable veracity of White House promises about

significant legislation impacting literally all adult

Americans but at the hyperbole of Republican criticism

thereof.''

Democrats will raise audits on the middle class under the

guise of going after the tax gap.

``The fact remains that you can't close the tax gap without

greater enforcement on the poor and that enforcement on the

poor is considerably less expensive.''

``It is true that Yellen has freshly directed the IRS to

not increase the audit rate of under-$400,000s. And it's also

true that there's no structural enforcement mechanism

preventing the agency from continuing to go after low-hanging

fruit to meet revenue targets.''

Only $3.2 billion of the $80 billion total goes towards

improving services for taxpayers.

``. . . just $3.2 billion of the $80 billion is earmarked

for customer service, producing a mere 9 percent increase

over the previous baseline. If the agency is bad at answering

phone calls--and it's bad at answering phone calls--a 9

percent bump seems inadequate to the task.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Hern), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I point out that the Biden administration is not giving us all the information. Secretary Yellen said that the IRS will not raise audit rates for taxpayers making less than $400,000 ``relative to historic levels.'' What does ``historic levels'' really mean?

I include in the Record a CBO blog post from 2021 examining the Biden administration's $80 billion proposal and stating that it would ``return audit rates to the levels of about 10 years ago'' and that ``the rate would rise for all taxpayers.''

[From the CBO Blog, Sept. 2, 2021]

The Effects of Increased Funding for the IRS

(By Phill Swagel)

Last month, the Congressional Budget Office published An

Analysis of Certain Proposals in the President's 2022 Budget.

Since then, CBO has completed its analysis of another

proposal in the President's budget, an increase in spending

for the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS's) enforcement

activities. CBO estimates that portions of the

Administration's proposal to increase funding for the IRS by

$80 billion over the 2022-2031 period would increase revenues

by approximately $200 billion over those 10 years. That

estimate does not include changes in revenues resulting from

portions of the proposal that involve new information-

reporting requirements and other changes to the tax code;

those changes are estimated by the staff of the Joint

Committee on Taxation (JCT).

the proposal

The Administration proposes funding for the IRS that is $80

billion greater over 10 years than the amounts in CBO's July

2021 baseline projections (which reflect the assumption that

current laws generally do not change). Two types of funding

would be provided: discretionary appropriations, which would

mainly be used for enforcement activities; and mandatory

funding, which would be used for a variety of activities (not

only enforcement but also operations support, business-

systems modernization, and taxpayer services).

Spending would increase in each year between 2021 and 2031,

though the highest growth would occur in the first few years.

By 2031, CBO projects, the proposal would make the IRS's

budget more than 90 percent larger than it is in CBO's July

2021 baseline projections and would more than double the

IRS's staffing. Of the $80 billion, CBO estimates, about $60

billion would be for enforcement and related operations

support.

The Administration also proposes that financial

institutions increase their reporting about account inflows

and outflows. Part of the increased funding would support the

implementation of a new information-reporting system to be

used by those institutions. The resulting effects on revenues

are estimated by JCT and are not included in CBO's estimate

of an approximately $200 billion increase.

how cbo estimates the effect on revenues of increased irs funding

CBO's estimate of revenues is based on the IRS's projected

returns on investment (ROIs) for spending on new enforcement

initiatives. The IRS estimates those ROIs by calculating the

expected revenues that would be raised from taxes, interest,

and penalties as a result of the new initiatives and dividing

them by their additional cost. (The agency has provided ROIs

over the past five years as part of its budget

justification.) The IRS's ROIs ramp up over three years as

staff become trained and fully productive, arrive at the peak

level, and then stay there. In recent years, peak ROIs have

ranged from 5 to 9. That is, a $1 increase in spending on the

IRS's enforcement activities results in $5 to $9 of increased

revenues.

CBO adjusts the ROIs so that they better reflect the

marginal return on additional spending. First, CBO expects

the IRS to prioritize the enforcement activities that it

thinks will have the highest average return; additional

enforcement spending would therefore have lower returns than

previous spending. Second, CBO expects taxpayers to adapt to

the IRS's enforcement activities and adopt new ways of

evading detection, so an enforcement activity may have a

lower return in later years. Finally, the productivity of the

IRS's enforcement activities will also depend on the IRS's

other capabilities. For example, modernized information

technology that stored all of a taxpayer's information in

digital form could increase the productivity of examiners

(the employees who detect taxpayers' noncompliance).

CBO's estimate of revenues also accounts for the timing of

collections resulting from enforcement activity by new hires.

Taxes are assessed at the end of an audit; if taxpayers

disagree with the assessment, they can appeal and continue to

litigate. The length of each step depends on the complexity

of the case. CBO estimates that an audit of medium complexity

would take 24 months to complete. That time, combined with

the expected training time for an experienced new hire,

suggests that the IRS would begin to collect revenues 30

months after the new hire joined the agency. (The timing

would be longer when cases were more complex or when the

taxpayer did not agree to the assessment and appealed.)

what is incorporated into cbo's estimate

CBO's estimate of the change in revenues is relative to the

amount of revenues collected under current law (which is

reflected in CBO's baseline budget projections). Under

guidelines agreed to by the legislative and executive

branches, this change in revenues typically would not be

included in a cost estimate for legislation that brought

about the change, but it would be reflected in CBO's baseline

budget projections once the legislation was enacted. CBO's

estimate reflects the assumption that the proposed

increase in funding would follow the proposed expansion of

information reporting. Expanded information reporting

might allow the IRS to better target potentially

noncompliant taxpayers; it might also prompt taxpayers to

file more accurate tax returns. It might have a positive

effect on revenues collected, but it might also reduce the

ROIs from enforcement activities, because if returns are

more accurate, there will be less noncompliance to audit.

In CBO's and JCT's judgment, those effects roughly offset

each other, on net, resulting in a small positive effect

on ROIs.

CBO's estimate includes ``direct revenues'' and ``protected

revenues.'' Direct revenues are generated from the IRS's

auditing and collection efforts. Protected revenues result

when the IRS prevents a taxpayer from recouping previously

assessed and paid taxes--for example, when the IRS prevents

fraudulent refunds or disallows claims in taxpayers' amended

returns.

The estimate reflects CBO's expectation that the increased

enforcement activities would change the voluntary compliance

rate--that is, the share of taxes owed that are paid

voluntarily and on time--only modestly. The magnitude of that

effect is highly uncertain, however, and the empirical

evidence about the effects of audits on taxpayers' behavior

is inconclusive. Research about such deterrence finds varying

responses, depending on the type of taxpayer. People

generally increase their reported income in the years

following an audit, but people with higher income generally

do not, and neither do corporations. (For more discussion,

see Box 1 in CBO's July 2020 report Trends in the Internal

Revenue Service's Funding and Enforcement.)

how the current analysis differs from previous analyses

In that July 2020 report, CBO estimated that a $40 billion

increase in enforcement funding would raise $103 billion (for

a net effect of $63 billion). The methods used for this

estimate differ in several ways from the methods used for

that one.

First, CBO used updated ROIs that incorporated the IRS's

most recent estimates of the return on enforcement

activities. CBO then adjusted the ROIs to reflect both direct

revenues and protected revenues, increasing the peak ROI from

6.4 to 7.1.

Second, CBO's current methods allow for positive

interaction between enforcement spending and other IRS

funding. That is, CBO accounts for ways in which increased

capabilities, such as more digitization of

taxpayers' information and greater visibility of income

flows, can increase the productivity of enforcement

activities.

Third, this analysis reflects a longer time frame for

receiving enforcement revenues because of the complexity of

audits associated with high-wealth individuals, large

corporations, and partnerships. Taxpayers with greater

resources may be more likely to appeal assessments or to

litigate their disputes in the U.S. Tax Court, delaying the

receipt of assessed taxes. As a result, revenues from some

audits will not be received until later than CBO estimated in

its July 2020 analysis.

sources of uncertainty

The change in revenues resulting from an increase in the

IRS's funding could be different from CBO's estimate. It

depends on the IRS's ability to hire experienced candidates,

changes in voluntary compliance, and the interaction of

enforcement funding with the IRS's other capabilities.

The IRS intends to hire mid- and senior-level people with

private-sector experience who will not require a great deal

of training to become productive. But it might not be able to

hire its desired mix of candidates. If it hired less

experienced candidates, it would have to spend more resources

training them. Not only would they take longer to become

productive, but current staff members would have to devote

more time to training them. A related source of uncertainty

in CBO's estimate is attrition: If it proved higher than

expected, personnel would have fewer years at full

productivity.

An increase in the IRS's funding could signal that the

agency was more capable of detecting noncompliance, thus

increasing voluntary compliance and revenues. However, if

there were fewer noncompliant taxpayers to audit, the ROIs

from the IRS's enforcement activities would drop, and the

direct revenues from increased enforcement would be lower

than CBO estimated.

Finally, it is unclear how much the greater information

reporting or the increased IRS spending in areas other than

enforcement (such as technology) could improve examiners'

productivity. Greater nonenforcement spending might increase

overall revenues but decrease ROIs--for example, if improved

services for taxpayers enabled those taxpayers to more

accurately determine their tax liability, reducing the pool

of noncompliant taxpayers to audit.

effects on taxpayers

The proposed increase in spending on the IRS's enforcement

activities would result in higher audit rates than those

underlying CBO's baseline budget projections. Between 2010

and 2018, the audit rate for higher-income taxpayers fell,

while the audit rate for lower-income taxpayers remained

fairly stable. In CBO's baseline projections, the overall

audit rate declines, resulting in lower audit rates for both

higher-income and lower-income taxpayers. The proposal, by

contrast, would return audit rates to the levels of about 10

years ago; the rate would rise for all taxpayers, but higher-

income taxpayers would face the largest increase. In

addition, the Administration's policies would focus

additional IRS resources on enforcement activity aimed at

high-wealth taxpayers, large corporations, and partnerships.

CBO estimates that if the proposals were enacted, tax

compliance would be improved, and more households would meet

their obligation under the law.

Higher audit rates would probably also result in some

audits of taxpayers who would later be determined not to owe

additional taxes. However, the Administration's proposal for

more information reporting, as well as additional spending on

IRS technology, might reduce the burden on compliant

taxpayers by allowing the IRS to better target noncompliant

ones and to reduce the number of audits that resulted in no

change in tax assessment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Steel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Spartz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Fallon).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the record a CBO post from 2021 examining the Biden administration's $80 billion proposal and stating that ``CBO projects the proposal would make the IRS' budget more than 90 percent larger than it is in CBO's July 2021 baseline projections and would more than double the IRS' staffing.''

[From CBO Blog, Sept. 2, 2021]

The Effects of Increased Funding for the IRS

(By Phil Swagel)

Last month, the Congressional Budget Office published An

Analysis of Certain Proposals in the President's 2022 Budget.

Since then, CBO has completed its analysis of another

proposal in the President's budget, an increase in spending

for the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS's) enforcement

activities. CBO estimates that portions of the

Administration's proposal to increase funding for the IRS by

$80 billion over the 2022-2031 period would increase revenues

by approximately $200 billion over those 10 years. That

estimate does not include changes in revenues resulting from

portions of the proposal that involve new information-

reporting requirements and other changes to the tax code;

those changes are estimated by the staff of the Joint

Committee on Taxation (JCT).

The Proposal

The Administration proposes funding for the IRS that is $80

billion greater over 10 years than the amounts in CBO's July

2021 baseline projections (which reflect the assumption that

current laws generally do not change). Two types of funding

would be provided: discretionary appropriations, which would

mainly be used for enforcement activities; and mandatory

funding, which would be used for a variety of activities (not

only enforcement but also operations support, business-

systems modernization, and taxpayer services).

Spending would increase in each year between 2021 and 2031,

though the highest growth would occur in the first few years.

By 2031, CBO projects, the proposal would make the IRS's

budget more than 90 percent larger than it is in CBO's July

2021 baseline projections and would more than double the

IRS's staffing. Of the $80 billion, CBO estimates, about $60

billion would be for enforcement and related operations

support.

The Administration also proposes that financial

institutions increase their reporting about account inflows

and outflows. Part of the increased funding would support the

implementation of a new information-reporting system to be

used by those institutions. The resulting effects on revenues

are estimated by JCT and are not included in CBO's estimate

of an approximately $200 billion increase.

How CBO Estimates the Effect on Revenues of Increased IRS Funding

CBO's estimate of revenues is based on the IRS's projected

returns on investment (ROls) for spending on new enforcement

initiatives. The IRS estimates those ROls by calculating the

expected revenues that would be raised from taxes, interest,

and penalties as a result of the new initiatives and dividing

them by their additional cost. (The agency has provided ROls

over the past five years as part of its budget

justification.) The IRS's ROls ramp up over three years as

staff become trained and fully productive, arrive at the peak

level, and then stay there. In recent years, peak ROls have

ranged from 5 to 9. That is, a $1 increase in spending on the

IRS's enforcement activities results in $5 to $9 of increased

revenues.

CBO adjusts the ROls so that they better reflect the

marginal return on additional spending. First, CBO expects

the IRS to prioritize the enforcement activities that it

thinks will have the highest average return; additional

enforcement spending would therefore have lower returns than

previous spending. Second, CBO expects taxpayers to adapt to

the IRS's enforcement activities and adopt new ways of

evading detection, so an enforcement activity may have a

lower return in later years. Finally, the productivity of the

IRS's enforcement activities will also depend on the IRS's

other capabilities. For example, modernized information

technology that stored all of a taxpayer's information in

digital form could increase the productivity of examiners

(the employees who detect taxpayers' noncompliance).

CBO's estimate of revenues also accounts for the timing of

collections resulting from enforcement activity by new hires.

Taxes are assessed at the end of an audit; if taxpayers

disagree with the assessment, they can appeal and continue to

litigate. The length of each step depends on the complexity

of the case. CBO estimates that an audit of medium complexity

would take 24 months to complete. That time, combined with

the expected training time for an experienced new hire,

suggests that the IRS would begin to collect revenues 30

months after the new hire joined the agency. (The timing

would be longer when cases were more complex or when the

taxpayer did not agree to the assessment and appealed.)

What Is Incorporated Into CBO's Estimate. CBO's estimate of

the change in revenues is relative to the amount of revenues

collected under current law (which is reflected in CBO's

baseline budget projections). Under guidelines agreed to by

the legislative and executive branches, this change in

revenues typically would not be included in a cost estimate

for legislation that brought about the change, but it would

be reflected in CBO's baseline budget projections once the

legislation was enacted.

CBO's estimate reflects the assumption that the proposed

increase in funding would follow the proposed expansion of

information reporting. Expanded information reporting might

allow the IRS to better target potentially noncompliant

taxpayers; it might also prompt taxpayers to file more

accurate tax returns. It might have a positive effect on

revenues collected, but it might also reduce the ROIs from

enforcement activities, because if returns are more accurate,

there will be less noncompliance to audit. In CBO's and JCT's

judgment, those effects roughly offset each other, on net,

resulting in a small positive effect on ROIs.

CBO's estimate includes ``direct revenues'' and ``protected

revenues.'' Direct revenues are generated from the IRS's

auditing and collection efforts. Protected revenues result

when the IRS prevents a taxpayer from recouping previously

assessed and paid taxes-

for example, when the IRS prevents fraudulent refunds or

disallows claims in taxpayers' amended returns.

The estimate reflects CBO's expectation that the increased

enforcement activities would change the voluntary compliance

rate--that is, the share of taxes owed that are paid

voluntarily and on time-only modestly. The magnitude of that

effect is highly uncertain, however, and the empirical

evidence about the effects of audits on taxpayers' behavior

is inconclusive. Research about such deterrence finds varying

responses, depending on the type of taxpayer. People

generally increase their reported income in the years

following an audit, but people with higher income generally

do not, and neither do corporations. (For more discussion,

see Box 1 in CBO's July 2020 report Trends in the Internal

Revenue Service's Funding and Enforcement.)

How the Current Analysis Differs From Previous Analyses. In

that July 2020 report, CBO estimated that a $40 billion

increase in enforcement funding would raise $103 billion (for

a net effect of $63 billion). The methods used for this

estimate differ in several ways from the methods used for

that one.

First, CBO used updated ROIs that incorporated the IRS's

most recent estimates of the return on enforcement

activities. CBO then adjusted the ROIs to reflect both direct

revenues and protected revenues, increasing the peak ROI from

6.4 to 7.1.

Second, CBO's current methods allow for positive

interaction between enforcement spending and other IRS

funding. That is, CBO accounts for ways in which increased

capabilities, such as more digitization of taxpayers'

information and greater visibility of income flows, can

increase the productivity of enforcement activities.

Third, this analysis reflects a longer time frame for

receiving enforcement revenues because of the complexity of

audits associated with high-wealth individuals, large

corporations, and partnerships. Taxpayers with greater

resources may be more likely to appeal assessments or to

litigate their disputes in the U.S. Tax Court, delaying the

receipt of assessed taxes. As a result, revenues from some

audits will not be received until later than CBO estimated in

its July 2020 analysis.

Sources of Uncertainty. The change in revenues resulting

from an increase in the IRS's funding could be different from

CBO's estimate. It depends on the IRS's ability to hire

experienced candidates, changes in voluntary compliance, and

the interaction of enforcement funding with the IRS's other

capabilities.

The IRS intends to hire mid- and senior-level people with

private sector experience who will not require a great deal

of training to become productive. But it might not be able to

hire its desired mix of candidates. If it hired less

experienced candidates, it would have to spend more resources

training them. Not only would they take longer to become

productive, but current staff members would have to devote

more time to training them. A related source of uncertainty

in CBO's estimate is attrition: If it proved higher than

expected, personnel would have fewer years at full

productivity.

An increase in the IRS's funding could signal that the

agency was more capable of detecting noncompliance, thus

increasing voluntary compliance and revenues. However, if

there were fewer noncompliant taxpayers to audit, the ROIs

from the IRS's enforcement activities would drop, and the

direct revenues from increased enforcement would be lower

than CBO estimated.

Finally, it is unclear how much the greater information

reporting or the increased IRS spending in areas other than

enforcement (such as technology) could improve examiners'

productivity. Greater nonenforcement spending might increase

overall revenues but decrease ROIs--for example, if improved

services for taxpayers enabled those taxpayers to more

accurately determine their tax liability, reducing the pool

of noncompliant taxpayers to audit.

Effects on Taxpayers

The proposed increase in spending on the IRS's enforcement

activities would result in higher audit rates than those

underlying CBO's baseline budget projections. Between 2010

and 2018, the audit rate for higher-income taxpayers fell,

while the audit rate for lower-income taxpayers remained

fairly stable. In CBO's baseline projections, the overall

audit rate declines, resulting in lower audit rates for both

higher-income and lower-income taxpayers. The proposal, by

contrast, would return audit rates to the levels of about 10

years ago; the rate would rise for all taxpayers, but higher-

income taxpayers would face the largest increase. In

addition, the Administration's policies would focus

additional IRS resources on enforcement activity aimed at

high-wealth taxpayers, large corporations, and partnerships.

CBO estimates that if the proposals were enacted, tax

compliance would be improved, and more households would meet

their obligation under the law.

Higher audit rates would probably also result in some

audits of taxpayers who would later be determined not to owe

additional taxes. However, the Administration's proposal for

more information reporting, as well as additional spending on

IRS technology, might reduce the burden on compliant

taxpayers by allowing the IRS to better target noncom pliant

ones and to reduce the number of audits that resulted in no

change in tax assessment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. De La Cruz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with concern about some of these points that have been raised. I think we have heard it from both sides that the IRS is not answering the phone like they should, to actually serve the taxpayers, taxpayers who want to do the right thing.

It is conceivable that there would be taxpayers overpaying as well because of the complexity in the tax code, and yet the record shows over the years that there have been innocent taxpayers, taxpayers who already paid what they owed, who were still audited and were considered guilty until they proved themselves innocent. To me, that is a huge problem.

We just heard that there is concern about the debt, and yet the answer is just more government employees, in fact, more than double of what the current number of employees are. I have huge concerns about that, and that is why I think we need to vote for this bill, get the President and the Senate to agree to this, and work together to focus on customer service issues that everyone knows are a concern at the

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the conversation that we have had here. I think there is fundamental disagreement on what the real solutions need to be; although, I think there is agreement that the current customer service at the IRS is significantly underperforming.

Now, in 2019, in a bipartisan fashion, we passed the Taxpayer First Act. In fact, our highly respected colleague, the late Representative John Lewis, led the way on that, as well. This was about customer service and reform at the IRS. Were there benefits from that? COVID got in the way.

I think that does actually beg the question of what have been the impacts of COVID on customer service at the IRS.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that when there are resources afforded the IRS, they are just not used the way they can and should be, especially as it relates to customer service and the honest taxpayers that my colleague from Massachusetts references. We want to do everything we can when the American people are doing the right thing, for the right reasons, and abiding by the law. Yet they would still be exposed to having to prove themselves again after they already did with voluntary tax compliance. But here comes an audit. I vividly recall the fact that in the 1990s, the IRS, as an agency, overstepped.

In fact, I believe it was President Clinton that even pulled back the IRS somewhat because they were going after law-abiding, taxpaying Americans who already did everything they were supposed to do.

That certainly establishes my concern about why we would see legislation passed last year that would pretty randomly put forward funding that I think will ultimately get in the way of these taxpaying Americans who, like I said, already did everything they were supposed to do, but yet they have to incur the expense.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this bill for good public policy, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, today, I join Representative Mike Flood to honor the life and service of former Nebraska State Senator Pat Engel, whom we served alongside during our time in the Nebraska Legislature.

Born in South Sioux City, Nebraska, Pat was a man of faith who applied his sharp mind to a life of service to his community and never stopped serving.

After his early military career concluded with Active Duty as an Air Force intelligence officer stationed in Germany, he chose to return with his young family to South Sioux City. There, as a prolific volunteer, he earned a reputation for his good nature and compassion for others as he served on two local school boards, numerous volunteer organizations, and as Dakota County commissioner.

In his 16 years in the legislature, Pat defined what it is to be a public servant. He was well liked. He had a special gift to work and connect with anyone, and I will always remember his cheerful way, even when issues were difficult. He was known for bringing people together.

Pat and his wife, Dee, were married for almost 68 years and had five children. Family, community, and love for his home State meant the world to Pat. He will be missed.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Wenstrup for the time and thank both him and Dr. Davis for the work they have done to get this bipartisan bill to the floor.

I rise in strong support of this 5-year reauthorization of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting program, which honors our late colleague and friend, Jackie Walorski.

Jackie spent every day working in this body to improve the lives of families in Indiana and across the country, and enacting this bill, which enhances the ability of States and communities to help at-risk new parents care for and support their children, I think is a fitting tribute.

I led the last MIECHV reauthorization 5 years ago when I chaired the Human Resources Subcommittee, and this bill actually enhances everything that MIECHV does right.

It is a preventative program which keeps kids out of the child welfare system and saves money.

It uses fact-based methods to ensure our support dollars are well spent.

It asks States to provide matching funds, so they have some skin in the game when utilizing this funding, and it is paid for within our committee's jurisdiction without raising taxes.

MIECHV is a model for how our safety net should work, and I strongly support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Bulk Infant Formula to Retail Shelves Act. I appreciate my colleague, Suzan DelBene, for working together to help lead this bipartisan effort to further address our Nation's ongoing infant formula shortage.

It is very disappointing that the administration knew of this looming shortage for months, actually, before they developed a strategy. So here we are, 9 months into the crisis, and as yet, as of August, 30 percent of our Nation's baby formula was out of stock nationally for 6 weeks in a row. This is simply unacceptable.

I am glad that we can work together to correct this. We must use every tool available to increase domestic manufacturing, including responsibly importing FDA-approved base powder used to manufacture formula when needed.

The Bulk Infant Formula to Retail Shelves Act builds on the bipartisan work done in the Formula Act and supports domestic manufacturing by allowing formula base powder to be imported duty-free through the end of the year.

I will continue to work with my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee to use trade tools to strengthen critical supply chains like infant formula.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity that we can work together to remove barriers to getting nutrition to especially young children. As a father of pretty young kids, I can appreciate the fact that it is pretty scary for families not being able to find formula when they previously could.

I think that when we talk about supply chains, as was discussed as well, we have got a lot of work to do ahead of us, and that we can hopefully bring about more affordable results for the American people.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered to be the first sponsor of H.R. 8137, a bill originally introduced by Representative Walorski of Indiana, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding me time.

As Mr. Burgess pointed out, if we defeat the previous question, I will move to amend the rule to make in order my amendment to strike funding for IRS enforcement activities.

The administration's own Treasury Department has said this funding would be used to hire 87,000 new IRS agents. This has been verified. These agents will be focused on targeting American families, small businesses, farmers, and ranchers with audits.

Families and small businesses are struggling. That is no secret. Inflation is at 8.5 percent. Food and gas prices are at record highs. Despite this bill's name, reasonable economists agree it will do nearly nothing to actually reduce inflation, especially in the near term.

Small business pessimism about costs and access to workers is at all- time highs, and audits would only compound this misery. Estimates put the starting cost to a small business being audited in the range of $10,000 to $75,000. Ridiculous. That is the last thing our small businesses need, the vast majority of whom follow the law. They are law-abiding individuals and law-abiding businesses.

My amendment makes the following changes to the bill.

It strikes the $45 billion for enforcement activities, which include legal and litigation support, digital asset monitoring, and enforcing criminal statutes. Those are audit activities.

It strikes $25 billion for operation support, which includes rent payments, printing, postage, and other administrative activities to support the new auditors. It also strikes $104 million for the Office of Tax Policy at IRS, the office which creates new tax regulations.

It strikes $153 million for the U.S. Tax Court, where cases related to these new audits would be heard, and it strikes $50 million for Treasury to implement these changes.

Now, let me tell you what this amendment would not do. This amendment leaves in place $3.2 billion for taxpayer services to help address the backlog of nearly 20 million unprocessed returns. We agree this backlog is a serious problem, and taxpayers need better customer service. It leaves in place $4.8 billion for badly needed IRS systems modernization.

According to the CBO, the bill would still reduce the deficit if we adopt this amendment while leaving every other provision of the package intact.

Unless there are Senate Democrats who believe auditing families and small businesses is the single most important part of this bill, they should have no problem expeditiously passing it again.

Because we would only make in order this one single amendment, if we defeat the previous question, it will only delay final passage of the bill by about 20 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I have many serious concerns about this bill that the rule makes in order, which I will discuss later. I find it particularly troubling the Democrats think auditing thousands of more American families and small businesses is the solution to inflation.

Let's defeat the previous question and help assure law-abiding Americans that the IRS isn't going to show up at their doors.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, in this exchange here, the claims being made that this bill will just do so many wonderful things for our country and that they are holding harmless folks making less than $400,000.

The CBO just reported that at least $20 billion in savings from this bill will come from families making less than $400,000 a year, hardly what has been stated by the folks advocating for this bill.

We know that the facts point out that it is 87,000 new employees, including agents, over at the IRS, and these full-time equivalents would take place by 2031. I am not sure where those folks come from, necessarily. I know it has been stated that this would fill vacancies or answer retirements for the next few years. But why do we need new money for that? That should already be budgeted.

Certainly, these agents at the IRS have law enforcement authority. They have badges that let them walk around the magnetometers at the airports. Certainly, I would assume they are armed, as well.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates 78 to 90 percent of new revenue from unreported income will come from folks earning less than $200,000 per year.

I think we need to be very cautious as we move forward and grow an agency that even President Clinton pushed back on when he was President, realizing that the agency was harassing the American people.

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear that if Secretary Yellen were accurate when she said that inflation was transitory, we would have no reason to be here right now. Obviously, she has backed off those comments based on realities, and that is what we need to focus on. Now, the realities and the facts are not what some hopes might be for some legislation on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record documents from the CBO, the JCT, the GAO, and the Department of the Treasury.

CBO has received a number of questions regarding our

estimate of an amendment offered by Senator Crapo during the

floor debate on H.R. 5376 last weekend. That amendment,

#5404, would limit the use of additional funds for the

Internal Revenue Service. If the amendment had been adopted

none of the additional funds could have been used to audit

taxpayers with taxable incomes below $400,000.

CBO did not complete a formal cost estimate in advance of

consideration of the amendment but the agency did provide the

following information to the Senate Budget Committee:

CBO estimates that the amendment 5404 would have the

following effects:

No effect on outlays in the one or ten year budget windows;

would reduce outlays in the five year budget window.

No effect on revenues in the one year budget window; would

reduce the ``non-scorable'' revenues resulting from the

provisions of section 10301 in the five and ten year budget

windows.

No effect on outlays after 2031 but would decrease the

``non-scorable'' revenue resulting from the provisions of

section 10301 after 2031.

CBO has not completed a point estimate of this amendment

but the preliminary assessment indicates that amendment 5404

would reduce the ``non-scorable'' revenues resulting from the

provisions of section 10301 by at least $20 billion over the

FY2022-FY2031 period.

Thanks,

Leigh Angres,

Director of Legislative Affairs,

Congressional Budget Office.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this legislation.

When I recently visited with a manufacturer in my district whose products are highly dependent on access to chips, they told me that chips only comprise 5 percent of their supply chain challenges.

Chips are one of 10 sectors where China is seeking to break American dominance. This bill does not address our issues with China. It certainly doesn't address the other nine issues where China is also seeking to break American dominance.

For the same cost of these chips provisions, we could enact better R&D policy, ensure interest expensing, and bring IP back to the U.S. Broad-based policies would help all sectors of our economy.

I am as disappointed by what is not in this bill as I am disappointed with what is in it.

I am disappointed this bill doesn't include reauthorizations of noncontroversial trade policies which waive tariffs on manufacturing inputs for our domestic manufacturers and ensure fair treatment of U.S. products when we export them to developing countries.

Renewing these longstanding policies would help address our supply chain crisis, yet House Democrats refuse to bring reasonable reauthorizations to the floor.

This bill falls short. It is the wrong bill at the wrong time, and I will be voting ``no.'' I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will be brief in my remarks here.

I know that you have heard several concerns expressed about this entire process, and I would certainly share those concerns.

I do think that this is a great opportunity to address a bipartisan issue that is important across America. But it appears this bill was negotiated quickly, in secret, and outside the committees of jurisdiction. Neither outside stakeholders nor Members who have worked extensively on telehealth policy were consulted, as far as I can tell, and the closed rule under which this is being considered has precluded any opportunity to improve or amend the bill.

An issue this important deserves an open and transparent process that follows regular order, allowing Members to offer input and highlight important needs which might otherwise have been overlooked. We call this legislating.

If we had worked together on the Ways and Means Committee with our Energy and Commerce friends and had included the various ideas and innovations, this would have been a true and real bipartisan bill. I am confident that the telehealth extension we are considering today would be even better, as has been mentioned by my colleagues.

In fact, back in May, I introduced a bipartisan bill almost identical to this one called the Connecting Rural Telehealth to the Future Act. That bill extended all the provisions included in the FY22 omnibus through at least 2024 and also included provisions to ensure critical access hospitals can continue to provide telehealth services to their patients. It also corrects a flaw in the CARES Act which shortchanges federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics which offer telehealth services.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record two letters from the National Rural Health Association and the National Association of Rural Health Clinics expressing their support for both the aims of H.R. 4040 as well as the need to extend critical rural health provisions from the Connecting Rural Telehealth to the Future bill.

National Rural

Health Association,

July 26, 2022.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives.

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader McCarthy: The

National Rural Health Association (NRHA) applauds the House

of Representatives for prioritizing telehealth flexibilities

by scheduling a vote on H.R. 4040, the Advancing Telehealth

Beyond COVID-19 Act of 2022. This legislation will extend

important telehealth flexibilities enacted in the Coronavirus

Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, and extended

for 151 days post-public health emergency in the Consolidated

Appropriations

Act (CAA), 2022, until December 31, 2024. NRHA supports the

extension of telehealth flexibilities to show providers that

telehealth is here to stay but urges rural friendly tweaks to

the legislation.

NRHA is a non-profit membership organization with more than

21,000 members nationwide that provides leadership on rural

health issues. Our membership includes every component of

rural America's health care, including rural community

hospitals, critical access hospitals, doctors, nurses, and

patients. We provide leadership on rural health issues

through advocacy, communications, education, and research.

As the text is currently written, H.R. 4040 includes the

extension of distant-site status for Federally Qualified

Health Centers (FQHC) and Rural Health Clinics (RHC) at their

current reimbursement level. While continuation of this

flexibility is necessary, the reimbursement level for virtual

services is significantly lower than in-person services under

current statute. Should reimbursement remain as it is

currently written, by 2028 there will be nearly a $100

discrepancy between services provided in-person and virtually

at RHCs. NRHA believes this will cause rural communities to

utilize these important services less often than their urban

and suburban counterparts moving forward and will cause harm

to an already fragile rural safety net.

To remedy this discrepancy, NRHA urges this text be amended

to incorporate reimbursement updates as reflected in Section

9 of H.R. 7876, the Connecting Rural Telehealth into the

Future Act, introduced by Representatives Adrian Smith (R-NE)

and Terri Sewell (D-AL). Incorporating this legislative text

will bring payment parity between in-person and virtual care

at RHCs and FQHCs and ensure that rural communities have

access to the same health care delivery methods as their

urban and suburban counterparts.

NRHA applauds the House of Representatives for acting on

telehealth to show providers long-term stability. However, to

ensure that rural providers, and their patients, can properly

utilize these services tweaks are needed.

Sincerely,

Alan Morgan,

Chief Executive Officer.

Madam Speaker, these organizations fully understand the vital role that rural health clinics and FQHCs and critical access hospitals play in ensuring access to care for those in rural and underserved areas.

Even with the passage of this bill, the future of telehealth after the government-designated public health emergency is uncertain. More work needs to be done to assess what has worked well over the last 2 years, what can be improved, and what can safely be left behind.

While I do encourage Members to vote ``yes'' on this bill, I hope in the future we can work in a true bipartisan fashion under regular order to address the gaps that we know exist in policy and set a long-term, sustainable course for telehealth well beyond 2024.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Hern), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Steel).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I think we have had a good discussion here today. I think we have laid out that we are acting in good faith, supporting an issue, moving it forward, but also posing the scenario that there are so many other things we can do to address the very matter that we are taking up here today.

The surrounding details about how this bill came up and everything, I think it is problematic for the institution. But the fact of the matter is, we have an issue here that we need to address. I hope that we can work to continue to make it permanent in the future so that we can encourage investment, as was outlined previously, and encourage bending of the cost curve, ultimately, on healthcare, which is lacking at this point in time.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill, and I urge a different kind of cooperation moving forward.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.